David Keighley: Obama’s green energy plan is a suicide note for the US economy. But you won’t hear that on the BBC

Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan is a Kamikaze suicide note for the US economy by one of the most divisive presidents in US history.

A nation that has grown gloriously prosperous because of cheap energy prices based on a vast abundance of fossil fuels – the latest being shale gas - is now throwing away its competitive advantages and opting for fuel sources that are massively more expensive and unreliable.

A normal journalistic response to such blind, doctrinaire madness would be to ask why?

This expert  assessment from Australian commentator Jo Nova suggests that the Obama vanity project will cost the American economy a staggering $2.5 trillion, put a million people out of work...and for what? At best, it will achieve a reduction of 0.1 per cent in world CO2 emissions and not change the temperature one iota.   Another economic assessment of the massive true cost of ‘renewables’  is here.

That different perspective, of course, is of no consequence to the 8,000 journalists at the BBC. Under their bonkers ‘due impartiality’ rules propagated and enforced by the BBC Trustees, they barely even acknowledge that views that challenge climate alarmism have any validity.

Under this McCarthyite regime, speakers on outlets such as the BBC’s Thought for the Day are emboldened and authorised by BBC editors to call those who disagree with climate change alarmism simply ‘deniers’ and ignore them.   The insult by deliberate linkage to Holocaust deniers is fully intended - and sanctioned at the highest levels.

The upshot of this rigid mindset is that across the BBC, the Obama plan has been reported with reverence. This article is typical. The main question is not whether the spending of billions on wind and solar farms is lunacy – but instead, why the same cannot happen here? Oh, and whether the plan is enough to meet the demands of the arrogant law-breakers at Greenpeace.

This is therefore yet another peg to attack the Conservative government. Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, has had the temerity to announce plans to limit the huge subsidies that go to the companies that have made countless millions out of building wind and solar farms. To so-called BBC reporters like Roger Harrabin, that’s seen purely as massive attack on climate alarmism.

In reality, the new Conservative government is every bit as fanatical as Obama. It is still rigidly wedded to the Ed Miliband 2008 Climate Change Act, arguably the most costly and unnecessary measure ever passed by a British government.

Despite the Rudd changes, the core reality is still that it costs the UK taxpayer billions in needless subsidy every year, and inflicts endless hardship on the poor and the old by jacking up their energy prices and transferring their meagre cash to renewable energy spivs.  David Cameron and his minions believe the Obama Plan, along with the EU’s own equally restrictive measures to keep temperatures down, are necessary.

Because of this ideological zeal, dozens of efficient coal-fired power stations have been closed down since 2010, to the extent that experts are warning that the ability to meet full winter demand for energy via the National Grid is seriously at risk. At the same time, the last vestiges of the British coalmining industry are also being forced to close because without coal-fired power stations, there is no market for their output.

Cameron’s cabinet is determined to fight later this year at the Paris climate ‘summit’ for an international agreement on CO2 that will force the rest of the world to follow the same idiotic and dictatorial  path as the UK and now the US.  The one shaft of sanity that will probably prevent agreement is that China and India are having none of it – their energy plans are rooted firmly in the reliability, relative cheapness and efficiency of coal.

David Keighley

  • Bogbrush

    Fortunately Obama will be gone soon and I suspect much of his “legacy” will be reversed and buried by his successors. The Americans are nothing if not pragmatic in the longer run.

    Not so over here, and Europe, which is in a terminal decline. Boy, do we need a Leader right now.

    • BSO

      I second Bogbrush for leader all those in favour…

      • Little Black Censored

        We could do (and have done) worse.

    • Nockian

      Pragmatic or practical. I used to write pragmatic until I discovered it’s meaning.

      Yes, anyway as BSO says, you can be King if you want 🙂

      • Bogbrush

        Yeah, probably practical is better.
        The thing about the “Leader that’s needed” is that once they have served their purpose they have to be killed and vilified every after, so everyone can convince themselves that they had nothing to do with their actions.
        I’m right behind them 🙂

        • Nockian

          I think we just shoved you to the front. I believe self sacrifice for the nation is still very much still in vogue. 🙂

          • Bogbrush

            Well…. ok
            But understand that when I get round to the show trials I know where you both post……

        • BSO

          I repeat “Bogbrush for leader” I have a seconder. …those against?… Bog you’ve got one five year term…Then we sharpen the sickles.;-)

  • Chalcedon

    Our government is run by morons. We are a tiny island country, sitting on vast amounts of coal. It is a no brainer to build more efficient coal fired power stations and to produce town gas from our high quality coal. Of course the leadership read PPE or history at university, not chemistry. We are led by a bunch of arts graduates who have no inkling about science.

    • Little Black Censored

      We are a large population on a big island. (I am not disagreeing with the rest of what you say.

  • John Thomas

    Yes, we are run by morons, but don’t blame their arts studies – besides, it’s scientists (some, not all) that got us into the warmist delusions in the first place (it was good for grant getting); fortunately, more and more scientists, and others, are slowly seeing through warmism.

  • BSO

    It’s impossible for the USA to meet its own targets
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/08/080115-seven-most-coal-dependent-states/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20150801news-coalstates&utm_campaign=Content&sf11594104=1

    I think it would be funny actually watching Hillary Clinton – the ethics free
    zone – actually try and implement the mad Obama plan. But I care more about the
    USA than to wish her on anyone.

    Strip away the guff and its really the same in Germany:
    http://coldairings.luftonline.net/post/118288994456/friedmans-disinformation-on-german-electricity

    Yet the propaganda is relentless. I was originally fooled by Gore and therefore favourably disposed to global warming until I looked into it. I was shocked by the ideological nature of the so called science in favour. A whole generational of climatologists corrupted by public sector funding, a broken peer review process, a relentless green lobby, and a false theory that should
    have been abandoned years ago.
    They are now falsifying the figures. The Arctic is colder thicker and its annual melt has come later than any time in the last 10 years yet still they say the Polar bears will drown.

    Can anyone remember a time when a public policy was so wrong? It feels like 10 times worse
    than the monetarist experiments and free floating currencies that cost so much
    of our industrial base and created record unemployment in the early eighties.
    And this is an international phenomenon.

    I do think it will come down to us running out of supplies of electricity in the winter
    before Government’s actually turn back from the brink. What’s really frustrating is a moderate policy on renewable would be fine as fossil fuels will eventually run out. But of course such a policy would require us to reject the CAGW delusion.

    • Bogbrush

      Exactly; renewables as a route to eventual succession and as a strategic move to energy independence from dodgy countries would be fine, but as a way to save the World it’s ridiculous.

  • Nockian

    Good article. I would add that there are probably geo political reasons involved in green energy. There is a power play inherent in forcing other countries to obedience. Do as we say, not do as we do. Meanwhile any spiv/landowner/farmer that can make a quid, or politician that can grab a vote- or a lucrative position on the green energy gravy train-is smiling all the way to the bank.

  • twinscrew

    If the lights do go out it will be blamed on “we’re all living longer”

  • Allyup

    To check the realities of windpower – warts and all – see http://www.windbyte.co.uk/windpower.html.

    Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will? see http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
    It;s a world problem. It will make little difference whatever the EU does. The developing world population is rising rapidly and becoming richer which translates into much more fossil fuel burnt.
    there are well over 1000 more coal fired power stations being built
    http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/1-000-new-coal-fired-stations-planned/story-20404261-detail/story.html .
    Consequently world CO2 levels are rising just as rapidly as ever see regardless of all renewable energy http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    • Bogbrush

      Yeah, but with my energy-efficient lights, carbon neutral lifestyle, and deep concern for the plight of the Patagonian burrowing aardvark I can wow them at dinner parties.
      The programme I’m with provides progress reports of my sponsored trees as they grow in Norway – they’re right here with the pictures of the kids. I know the Pacific Islanders feel my solidarity.
      We’re off to Peru to learn from the Norte Chico this year though we had a wonderful weekend break at Tuscany last month. Carbon neutral, of course.

  • convincing

    One of my neighbours has a little wind generator on top of his shed and is very proud of the array of solar lights around his fence and garden. Today he had a barbecue and I couldn’t help but laugh as he burned his way through a few bags of charcoal. I don’t care about his little delusion as it doesn’t cost me anything but when governments are doing the same thing, only on a massive scale, I do wonder where we are heading.

  • BSO

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/
    Check out the great interactive graphic for US energy production.

  • digitaurus

    Thanks for the article and the links. A renewable source such as solar PV certainly suffers from needing a lot of land area and only being available when the sun is up. But I think the unit costs for solar PV will continue to fall rapidly over the coming years and decades. Over the long term, this is going to drive fossil fuel prices in one direction – down – and this will be of massive benefit to the West (which is short of cheap sources of fossil fuels). So, forget about arguments over climate change. Technology is solving the energy crisis and this is going to be to our advantage.

  • Mr_Twister

    Build coal fired Power stations ALL OVER Africa!
    Cheap energy means TV for all, INCLUDING WOMEN
    Women getting TV means women get educated (don’t lefties/Feminists want that?)
    Women getting educated means Birthrates will Fall (just like in the “Responsible WEST!)
    African Birthrates falling….

    MEANS…… They’re not all (80,000,000 births A YEAR IN THIRD WORLD) trying to get here Via Libya and the rest of Europe……

    …Ah I see why we can’t build those Power Stations in Africa!